Filed under news of the ridiculous: The City of Austin will train you in chicken-keeping and subsidize your coop. Why? Since this comes under the purview of Austin Resource Recovery (aka recycling), this may be a substitute for the much-hated proposal to require Austin residents to compost food scraps, a stinky solution to a non-problem.
I admit to being curious as to whether any new positions were created in the city bureaucracy to start and expand the chicken programs. I await clarification from the head of Austin Resource Recovery's Department of Chicken-Keeping, or perhaps the head of city chicken advocacy. Will the program expand into goat-keeping as well?
Austin has been run by a plague of liberal do-gooders for ages, normally just working out 'better' ways to grab and spend citizens' money. Often this is just ironically pathetic -- for instance the more than $700 million bond package for mobility which actually reduces the number of lanes available in major streets. This time, though, the city has gone completely into self-mockery mode.
You really can't make this stuff up.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Republican deathmatch
I prefer to pick on the Democrat candidates: Bernie is just hilarious. Hillary, on the other hand, is possibly the most unlikeable, baggage-laden candidate ever. Sooo easy to take substantive pot shots at these folks.
On the Republican side are some of the best candidates in decades, and one clown. Carson is a great man, but having a hard time convincing people that he can be president, and that's a shame. Rubio has been anointed by the Republican establishment as "their guy" after Jeb crashed and burned, so I'm not all that enamored of him. Being that I'm a naturalized Texan, I find Cruz the most compelling of the group. I like the fact he's got enemies in all the right places. He's principled, very bright, and sticks to his guns (in multiple senses), all of which I like.
Then there's the gold-plated dumpster fire, Trump. He has both the most loyal core, apparently, at about 30%, but also the strongest unfavorables, as in 60% of Republicans are in the "never Trump" category.
So the Republican side has some good candidates plus one raging dumpster fire. Unfortunately, all the decent candidates are splitting the level-headed vote, and if some of those candidates don't stand down, NOW, the clown will be the nominee.
And for those who believe they like Trump: He is not the person he seems.
The Donald is a deal maker, co-author of The Art of the Deal. He is now in "deal maker" mode, trying to seal the deal with Republican voters. He will do and say whatever is necessary to make the deal work. What we're seeing now is the most Republican, most conservative, most Christian-ish that The Donald will ever be. Because once the deal is done, he no longer needs the conservatives, the Christians, the 2nd Amendment folks, etc., that he's now sucking up to. The "make America great" and "send all the illegals home" rhetoric is just what he thinks it takes to make the deal. Historically, Trump seems to be a mildly-right-of-center Democrat, willing to donate to anyone who can give him an edge.
As president, Bernie would be a sincere disaster. Hillary would be a Clinton. 'Nuff said. And Trump would be out to continue to promote Trump, which would also be a disaster.
Ah, but Cruz would be a dangerous disaster as well, right? Yes! But my kind of a disaster! As Robert Reich points out in the best unintentional campaign ad for Cruz EVAH!
Wonderful endorsement, Mr. Reich.
On the Republican side are some of the best candidates in decades, and one clown. Carson is a great man, but having a hard time convincing people that he can be president, and that's a shame. Rubio has been anointed by the Republican establishment as "their guy" after Jeb crashed and burned, so I'm not all that enamored of him. Being that I'm a naturalized Texan, I find Cruz the most compelling of the group. I like the fact he's got enemies in all the right places. He's principled, very bright, and sticks to his guns (in multiple senses), all of which I like.
Then there's the gold-plated dumpster fire, Trump. He has both the most loyal core, apparently, at about 30%, but also the strongest unfavorables, as in 60% of Republicans are in the "never Trump" category.
So the Republican side has some good candidates plus one raging dumpster fire. Unfortunately, all the decent candidates are splitting the level-headed vote, and if some of those candidates don't stand down, NOW, the clown will be the nominee.
And for those who believe they like Trump: He is not the person he seems.
The Donald is a deal maker, co-author of The Art of the Deal. He is now in "deal maker" mode, trying to seal the deal with Republican voters. He will do and say whatever is necessary to make the deal work. What we're seeing now is the most Republican, most conservative, most Christian-ish that The Donald will ever be. Because once the deal is done, he no longer needs the conservatives, the Christians, the 2nd Amendment folks, etc., that he's now sucking up to. The "make America great" and "send all the illegals home" rhetoric is just what he thinks it takes to make the deal. Historically, Trump seems to be a mildly-right-of-center Democrat, willing to donate to anyone who can give him an edge.
As president, Bernie would be a sincere disaster. Hillary would be a Clinton. 'Nuff said. And Trump would be out to continue to promote Trump, which would also be a disaster.
Ah, but Cruz would be a dangerous disaster as well, right? Yes! But my kind of a disaster! As Robert Reich points out in the best unintentional campaign ad for Cruz EVAH!
Wonderful endorsement, Mr. Reich.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Strange days
Yes, I've got the old Doors Strange Days song playing in the back of my head.
The two presumptive candidates for president are now an old unrepentant socialist, and a billionaire whose claims to fame include being on reality TV, a series of news-making bankruptcies, and a series of trade-in wives.
The runner-up (at the moment) for the Democrat nomination is a former Secretary of State and Senator who doesn't seem to be able to name her accomplishments, possibly because they all seem to have seriously negative connotations. Hillary-care. Benghazi. "Smart diplomacy." Security leaks. If this woman weren't so well connected...
One Twitter pundit characterized the primaries as 'pending indictment' (Clinton) vs 'Venezuela' (Sanders) on the Democrat side, and 'gold plated dumpster fire' (Trump) vs 'most punchable face' (Cruz) on the Republican side. It would be funnier if it weren't so close to true.
One amusement is seeing the Democrat candidates trying to out-Leftist each other, then reading the estimates of how many trillions their give-aways will cost. The Republicans are mostly trying to out-conservative each other, which isn't nearly as amusing.
Strange days, indeed.
The two presumptive candidates for president are now an old unrepentant socialist, and a billionaire whose claims to fame include being on reality TV, a series of news-making bankruptcies, and a series of trade-in wives.
The runner-up (at the moment) for the Democrat nomination is a former Secretary of State and Senator who doesn't seem to be able to name her accomplishments, possibly because they all seem to have seriously negative connotations. Hillary-care. Benghazi. "Smart diplomacy." Security leaks. If this woman weren't so well connected...
One Twitter pundit characterized the primaries as 'pending indictment' (Clinton) vs 'Venezuela' (Sanders) on the Democrat side, and 'gold plated dumpster fire' (Trump) vs 'most punchable face' (Cruz) on the Republican side. It would be funnier if it weren't so close to true.
One amusement is seeing the Democrat candidates trying to out-Leftist each other, then reading the estimates of how many trillions their give-aways will cost. The Republicans are mostly trying to out-conservative each other, which isn't nearly as amusing.
Strange days, indeed.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
A modest environmental proposal
Recently the Obama administration pronounced conjecture as settled science in stating that climate change is causing massive health problems, even though there have been other reports citing studies to the contrary. I'm not buying it. "Climate change" advocates are too shrill, too fact-light and not effective in explaining things like why their models are off, why there's been a much-reported 17+ year pause in warming even though CO2 continues to rise, why the seas have only risen millimeters when they promised that Miami would be swimming before 2000...
Their predictions are consistently wrong. Why should they be trusted? This is just a bunch of government-backed bullies who are willing to twist facts around to get their way, whatever the collateral damage. They'll keep changing the story as pieces of their yarn unravel.
I read a blogger whose mantra about climate change is, paraphrased, "I'll believe it's a crisis when the elites start treating it as a crisis." Normally this is mentioned after Gore or DiCaprio take multiple private jet trips, or the Obamas take two or three government jets, on a boondoggle across the globe. Call it their "carbon bootprint." Obviously the "elites" don't care about their own carbon output.
But these are the people are proposing national climate policy, who supposedly care. They are trying to commit the US to massive efforts and trillions of dollars to combat "climate change." Recent recommendations are to cut US emissions by 80% by 2050, which would roll back our CO2 output to levels not seen since 1905. Even if this were possible, it would impoverish us. The very rich would still be comfortable, but the rest would be freezing in the dark. And that's here in the USA.
Elsewhere on the planet there are billions of people who just want to be warm and have some electricity, running clean water, maybe a nicer place to live, and perhaps eventually a car. China is now the world's largest emitter of CO2, and they've barely started to develop a middle class. India is the third largest emitter, a bit behind China but still progressing toward becoming middle class.
The USA cannot unilaterally reduce the trajectory of atmospheric carbon. We could drop emissions to zero and it would barely change the rate of accumulation of atmospheric CO2. (BTW, I do not think rising CO2 is a disaster. The earth has for most of its history had much higher CO2 than now.)
However, for those who claim to be serious about the "problem," this is the crux: too many humans striving to improve their lives. Even 19th century living conditions for billions of people may produce too much for the anti-carbonistas: China has become the number one CO2 source while much of their population just burns a few lumps of coal for warmth. China will not stop economic progress -- they will do as they have done: make placating noises while developing their economy.
The solution is obvious: a mass extinction event for humans. A few nuclear bombs sent to China and India would probably "save the planet," if anthropogenic global warming is in fact anthropogenic. The USA should be on the hit list as well, since it's still number 2 on the list of CO2 contributors, although I think India will probably pass the USA eventually.
I'm not advocating this. I think the whole "climate change" thing is way overblown and the science is being manipulated. But until the elites propose a solution that would actually "work" rather than a series of half-steps that will beggar the Western world, I cannot believe they are serious.
Their predictions are consistently wrong. Why should they be trusted? This is just a bunch of government-backed bullies who are willing to twist facts around to get their way, whatever the collateral damage. They'll keep changing the story as pieces of their yarn unravel.
I read a blogger whose mantra about climate change is, paraphrased, "I'll believe it's a crisis when the elites start treating it as a crisis." Normally this is mentioned after Gore or DiCaprio take multiple private jet trips, or the Obamas take two or three government jets, on a boondoggle across the globe. Call it their "carbon bootprint." Obviously the "elites" don't care about their own carbon output.
But these are the people are proposing national climate policy, who supposedly care. They are trying to commit the US to massive efforts and trillions of dollars to combat "climate change." Recent recommendations are to cut US emissions by 80% by 2050, which would roll back our CO2 output to levels not seen since 1905. Even if this were possible, it would impoverish us. The very rich would still be comfortable, but the rest would be freezing in the dark. And that's here in the USA.
Elsewhere on the planet there are billions of people who just want to be warm and have some electricity, running clean water, maybe a nicer place to live, and perhaps eventually a car. China is now the world's largest emitter of CO2, and they've barely started to develop a middle class. India is the third largest emitter, a bit behind China but still progressing toward becoming middle class.
The USA cannot unilaterally reduce the trajectory of atmospheric carbon. We could drop emissions to zero and it would barely change the rate of accumulation of atmospheric CO2. (BTW, I do not think rising CO2 is a disaster. The earth has for most of its history had much higher CO2 than now.)
However, for those who claim to be serious about the "problem," this is the crux: too many humans striving to improve their lives. Even 19th century living conditions for billions of people may produce too much for the anti-carbonistas: China has become the number one CO2 source while much of their population just burns a few lumps of coal for warmth. China will not stop economic progress -- they will do as they have done: make placating noises while developing their economy.
The solution is obvious: a mass extinction event for humans. A few nuclear bombs sent to China and India would probably "save the planet," if anthropogenic global warming is in fact anthropogenic. The USA should be on the hit list as well, since it's still number 2 on the list of CO2 contributors, although I think India will probably pass the USA eventually.
I'm not advocating this. I think the whole "climate change" thing is way overblown and the science is being manipulated. But until the elites propose a solution that would actually "work" rather than a series of half-steps that will beggar the Western world, I cannot believe they are serious.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Heh heh. Chinese IP Lawyers
In the category of "huh?" is this item:
Justice Boyd, recently elected to the Texas Supreme Court, is playing the straight man in this joke, it seems. Anyone who has done business in China feels some cognitive dissonance while contemplating "Chinese Intellectual Property Lawyers," or at least gets a chuckle out of the oxymoron.
Justice Boyd, recently elected to the Texas Supreme Court, is playing the straight man in this joke, it seems. Anyone who has done business in China feels some cognitive dissonance while contemplating "Chinese Intellectual Property Lawyers," or at least gets a chuckle out of the oxymoron.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
About this blog...
My wife, bless her, puts up with me. Not just that, but she sometimes even agrees that I'm right. So, indeed, I am right. My wife said so. Whether she accepts responsibility or not, she's an encouragement for this blog.
So what will I blog about? Important stuff, certainly. (Humph.) To wit:
So what will I blog about? Important stuff, certainly. (Humph.) To wit:
- Political rants: mine and others. (I'm a mostly-conservative guy stuck in a blue, blue, blue city. Living here is frustrating, so there will be some letting off of steam.)
- Technology. (My day job is more technical than most: I've been involved for decades in scientific programming, specifically for solving large systems of differential-algebraic equations related to semiconductor device design.) This affects how I view the daily news, which often seems written by the technically illiterate.
- Coffee. (Yes, I'm an unrepentant coffee snob.)
- Photography. (This is a serious hobby with me, which to date has made me not one cent. But it's fun for me.)
- Social issues. (I'm Christian. So shoot me. Christians have social responsibilities, but probably not what you think. Further, what is done about those responsibilities is probably not what you'd like, either. Frankly, as a nation we've screwed this up and Christians have helped.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)